Do copyrights last too long?

Great Debates
101

OK, we all seem to be talking about two different scenarios here:

Primaflora and I (and my writer friend, and the vast majority of copyright owners, I’ll warrant) are what might be considered “small fry”. Meaning, we aren’t rolling on dough, we don’t anticipate that we ever will, and we just want to have some control and say-so (and profit) for the work WE produce. We actively want to distribute our work and share it, but we don’t see why someone else should profit from OUR WORK after a short amount of time, or even in our lifetime. And we’d like our heirs to inherit a little of our “assets” for a few years after our death.

The rest of you are wanting to stop the nameless big publishing companies and Disneys of the world from withholding works or preventing other artists from being “influenced” by them. (And “influenced” is such a vague word, since as I already pointed out, many of us show “influence” of other artists, and yet we still never violate copyright.)

So, to sum it up: Primaflora and I want to protect the “low man on the totem pole” (us, and most of the copyright holders we know). And if a few big businesses benefit along the way? Well, we figure that’s the way it has to be, unless a more specific law can be written to be more specific about which kind of copyright holder gets more protection.

The rest of you want to stop the big business, and if the vast multitude of “small fry” (Primaflora, me, my handicapped writer friend) get screwed over, as big companies publish it and profit from it while we get nothing—well, that’s just tough shit, isn’t it? We should have planned better, shouldn’t we? Or maybe we should have gotten a “real” job? Is that it?

You DO realize that only a small percentage of artists and creative types make the “big time”, right? And you do realize that many forms of art (novels, some paintings, etc. etc.) take a VERY long time to produce, right? So what incentive do creative types have to devote YEARS to a project, if they know that it’ll be snatched away from them in a relatively short amount of time? Some creative works take a while to catch on; an artist cannot rely on getting back perhaps YEARS of work (and years of education and training) in a short amount of time.

Some people are making money off of books that they wrote (and in some cases, self-published) many years ago. The money they get from their old books allows them to have the time to spend on a new book. Just as many photographers make money off of work they produced years ago. Their whole income and way of life is based on the concept that eventually, enough of the work they’ve done will pay off. But it won’t happen overnight, and it won’t happen with one lump sum. It’ll be a trickle of money here, and there, and maybe over a lifetime they’ll have made their investment of time back. And you want to prevent them from doing this, because you don’t like that Disney makes a lot of money? Or because you feel these kind of artists should have “planned” better? Bull. Shit.

And how often does this happen? I suppose some sort of very rare exception could be allowed (the public could file a petition of sorts) to prevent such a thing from happening, if it could be proven that history and the Public were being severely damaged. (Of course, the example you brought up really didn’t happen…)

Why should more of our tax dollars support her, when Paramount Studios can well afford to pay her for the work they are profiting from?

We’ve already covered this. Your grandfather agreed to be paid a certain amount of money for building the staircase. There were no laws in existence that allowed him “rights” to how the staircase would be used, so he knew beforehand that he would have no say over the staircase’s use. And he did the work with that understanding, beforehand. If he had had a problem with the terms of his employment, he could have never consented to do the work in the first place.

In the creative world they have the same thing—it’s called “work for hire”, and artists and photographers (and probably writers) do it all the time. They are not the copyright owner, they sign away all rights before they do the work. It’s done all the time.

You’re kidding, right? So it’s her damned fault that all her education and training went to naught, because she had a lot of health problems the prevented her from making money through her writing for her whole life, right? So let Paramount and all the big companies rake in big profits from her work, while you and I support her with our tax dollars?

Once again, you’re kidding, RIGHT?!?! So, how long ago was Windows XP created? A little over a year? So it’s some terrible injustice that a company can’t even keep a hold of the rights to something for a little over a YEAR?

And you think it’s perfectly OK to profit from MY work by publishing and distributing it, even though a lot of my photographs are less than 10 years old? Since you apparently think it’s a shame that the government would intervene if you were to swipe one of my images and publish it for PROFIT so soon after I’ve created it…

Why exactly would I distribute any of my photographs, if everyone could immediately take it away and profit from it? No artist, writer or photographer could make a living if things worked that way. We couldn’t afford to pursue the arts. We’d all become accountants, or dentists or something. So much for “helping promote the arts”…

Because they are thieving bastards who can’t even wait a YEAR or so before they swipe someone else’s work and make a huge profit off of it! Oh, how terrible! How terrible for copyright holders to expect to be able to have exclusive rights to something they produced a YEAR ago! When will this injustice end?!? :rolleyes:

Look, if there was some way to distinguish the big companies from the “small fry” in the copyright laws, I’d support that. I don’t think that it’s especially great that Disney and its ilk have such a stranglehold on some works, but unless you can come up with a solution which allows the “small fry” (like Primaflora and me) to profit from our own work for our entire lives (and also allow our heirs some sort of “inheritance” for a few years), I will still continue to disagree with you. I think you want to “throw the baby out with the bathwater”. You don’t seem to care if the multitude of “small fry” get screwed over, (or are forced to give up devoting our lives to the creative arts), just as long as you get companies like Disney stopped from benefiting from copyright laws.

102

Actually, I think Even Sven is right : if you extend the copyrights by 20 years, everything which should have entered the public domain this year, for instance, will be copyrighted for 20 more years, hence nothing new will enter the public domain. And it will be so for the next 20 years indeed. Only on the 21st year works will begin again to enter the PD.
Things which are say, 50 years old at the moment of the change are already in the public domain, and things which are 49 years old will only enter it 20 years later. So, yes, there’s a 20 years gap.
(and even in the unlikely case where the laws would be retroactive, making works which are more than 50 but less than 70 years old, hence already in the PD, copyrighted again, and returning later to the PD, it would still be the same : nothing new for 20 years)

103

How would you be seriously screwed over?

Let’s say that the copyright laws were set back to the way they originally were in this country. 14 years, with an option to have one additional 14 year extension. Would you have to GIVE UP photography because of this? Would the photograpic, motion picture, and publishing industries collapse? Couldn’t you take new, original photos after 28 years and make money off of that? Is this unreasonable?

What about 30 years or life, whichever is longest?

Patents only last 20 years. Does that mean that inventing new things isn’t worth anyones effort?

104

For some people, quite possibly. Or, in my case, I could never go to photography full time (not that I am full time now, not by a long shot) because there would never be enough money in it.

I’ve already explained, some photographers make a living by selling photographs they first published 40+ years ago. The continued sale of these photos is what allows them to continue working FULL TIME in freelance photography. I’m sure in more than a few cases, some of their best moneymakers are the older photos.

Same goes with books, or artwork. Some writers and artists have a few “hits” that continue to bring in revenue after many years. The profits from these vintage “hits” allow the artists or author to continue to afford the time to work on new projects. While these newer projects may (or may not) be critical successes, do you really think that the artistic world would be better off if these people got a job as an accountant or dentist instead, and no longer had time to pursue new projects? Because I believe that is a distinct reality in many cases.

No, they’d always be making profits. I’m not worried about them. I’m worried about Primaflora, my writer friend and me—you know, the “small fry”.

Unless, of course, (like in the case of my writer friend) some devastating health problems prevent further projects from being produced. And the television industry, being the fickle thing it is, it probably won’t accept any of her new stories, but they damned well will profit from her old stories. (Which, I might add, are being syndicated, and in at least one case, distributed on tape and DVD to a loyal “cult” audience.)

And then there’s my sister, who lost most of her eyesight while in her 20s. Had I lost my sight in a similar way at a similar age (God Forbid) then all the education and training my parents invested in me would be wasted. But if some big company wanted to profit from my work after 28 years? Hey, that’s OK, isn’t it? I’d just let the taxpayers support me—that’s much better, isn’t it? :rolleyes:

That’s better, in most cases (though I support 35 - 50 years after the death of the copyright holder).

Hell, I’ll amend that—I’d support the heirs applying for an extension of the copyright after the death of the copyright holder. If the heirs are uninterested in holding the copyright (let’s say they were never close to the deceased copyright holder and didn’t give a damn about him) then after a certain amount of time (let’s say 7 years) the work goes into public domain. This would stop “abandoned” works from languishing because everyone is too afraid to dare to publish them. I would even support other restrictions to the heirs of copyrights. But I would still support the concept that some heirs are entitled to an “inheritance”.

But even so, what you suggest doesn’t cover my dad’s photographs. He died 15 years ago, some of his photographs were taken over 40 years ago. What motivation would I have to distribute his photos, if the laws were changed in the way you desire? I’d save myself a lot of time, money and effort by just leaving his slides in their boxes. So much for promoting the arts…

See page one of this thread. It’s already been discussed. Technology works at a much faster pace (and has a different dynamic going on) than artistic works. They are two different animals.

105

If technology is such a different thing than artistic work, how do you believe that we should treat computer code? Computer code changes rapidly, and although a few older programs exist, most programs become outdated and unavailible extremely soon after their publication. However, computer code is one situation where it is viable to build directly on another’s work to create a new piece. Programs often do build directly on top of each other. Often times you’ll end up with twenty programmers in twenty rooms writing the same piece of code that has already been written a million times but has never been released. By keeping computer code under copyright for so long- especially long after it is obsolete, we really do severely hinder the progress of computing, especially for smaller companies and hobbyists that don’t have the luxery of vast programming departments to do all the drudge work.

As for your dads photos, you have the originals, right? Why couldn’t you sell the originals to someone that does feel like it is worth their time to fix them up…perhaps someone that published stock-photos on CDs. Even non-copyrighted work still needs to be distributed, and there is money to be had there.

And, as an artist- one who works in a field where literally millions of dollars are at stake- I know how hard it can be to make a living in art. But because I know that, I’ve been able to plan ahead. I have a smallish chunk of money in the bank that I’m not spending right now, even though I don’t even have enough money right now to turn my heat on- because I know that there are likely to be long periods of time where I might not be able to work. Art has always been a risk best suited to the independently wealthy and the somewhat insane. It isn’t a stable field. Like “professional athlete” and “manufacturer of Pokeman cards” and “porn star”, it isn’t the sort of thing you can really rely on from day to day, much less the sort of thing you can expect to get you through long periods of unemployment and retirement. It sucks that we arn’t garunteed the ability to make a living off of anything that we want to be doing for our entire lives. But honestly, being able to support yourself off a single work is just as liable to make you not do anything as it is to inspire you to work full time.

People lose their livelyhoods all the time. Pilots get fainting-sicknesses. Carpenter lose their fingers. Truck drivers go blind and radio DJ’s go deaf. Actresses fall out of favor. Restraunt owners lose business to the fancy new coffee joint down the street. I really have a hard time seeing why artists deseve a special exception. Clearly in a prosperous society like ours we need a way of dealing with these unfortunate situations, but I don’t think the answer is through brute force legislation that only helps one class of people.

I don’t see any prospect for agreement in this discussion. I understand your concerns, but I have a very different way of looking at things. In the end I’m just a communist at heart who believes that art should be funded by the public and owned by the public. I really don’t expect most people to agree with me, and I am unlikely to be in charge of the world anytime soon. so perhaps I should bow out because I have run out of reasonable things to say.

106

I have NO IDEA how to treat computer code. I am not a programmer. I do know that computer programs change and evolve quickly, (as computers and operating systems evolve quickly) so that the timelines with computer code would probably be accelerated, compared to more traditional works, like writing, music and art.

Sell them, how? Sell the originals? No, I have no intention of doing that. They are precious to our whole family. I will scan them myself, maybe, but I don’t want to give them up. They are part of my dad.

I understand your position a little better, as well. However, why don’t you argue to have all arts funded by the public (government?) instead of supporting something that would almost assuredly benefit big businesses while usually screwing over the “small fry”?

I agree, it’s foolhardy to not have something to “fall back on” when you are in a creative field. (Which is why I don’t do my art full time.) But while it is true that one cannot count on supporting oneself on their own work, it certainly do not see how it is fair for big corporations to continually profit and benefit from other people’s works, while the orignal artists stand by and watch.

As you already know, many artists struggle to make enough money on their art, and can’t afford to be at it full time. But for those who do have more income because of some older moneymakers? The changes you want in copyright law would take even that away!

So, would you be OK with the idea of a large movie studio continuing to make steady bucks off of my TV writer friend’s work, while she gets nothing? She’d be pinching pennies, while they rake in the bucks? Because they have the resources to sell the prints of her TV shows, they have the budget and resources to record DVDs, advertise, etc. etc., and she doesn’t?

And would you be OK with the idea that a publishing company (or competing companies) could publish and distribute all of our works, continue to make a profit from these works, while we were left with nothing after a few years? As you know, not all art forms take off immediately. Sometimes they take years to be discovered. We might never see much of a profit from some of our work during the small amount of time that we would be “allowed” to have exclusive rights.

If things went the way that some of you suggest, we (the “small fry”) would be pushed out of the picture very quickly. We couldn’t afford to distribute our work ourselves, we couldn’t compete with the big companies, ever. After a short amount of time, we’d lose our rights to our own work, and the big companies with all the equipment, resources and advertising budget would take over, and continue to make money from then on.

107

In response to the question: What would you feel about thirty years or life, whichever is longest?

Fifty years or life of the author, whichever is longest, would be fine with me. It would more than fine. It would be great. Wonderful. Excellent.

But as for the heirs extending it again, no! No no no. No. No no.

It doesn’t matter how close the heirs actually were to the deceased copyright holder. They will considered themselves very close when they realize there’s money to be made.

And anyway, if an author has been profiting from a work for over 50 years (let’s say 60 years), and you give the heirs yet another 10 years, you have just reached the average life expectancy of a person who was born when the work was created.

That is just too long.

If you truly want your kids to live off works that they weren’t responsible for making, save up a lot of money over the course of your long life (lasting 50+ years after you start producing artistically is pretty damn good, you have to admit) and leave it to them when you die.

But I cannot accept another extension. 50 years/life of the author is enough. If copyrights last any longer, the children of the next generation will never get the opportunity to take works from their parent’s generation (our generation) and do something new with them.

As with the difference between copyrights and patents, this has been covered before.

If you put in the effort to restore those photos, you have the copyright on those restorations (I’m not a lawyer, but I’m still pretty durn sure about that). Congratulations, then. You and your heirs will have that copyright for at least fifty years (according to the fifty years or lifetime (whichever is longer) rule).

That’s a pretty sweet deal for you, more than enough incentive to dig out those old photos and prepare them for publication. And, in fifty years or so, others will be able to take those photos, and who knows? You say the photos aren’t much good except for what you use them for, but I try to make it a point to never underestimate what the future is capable of.

108

Strickler, maybe we’re getting somewhere on some of this stuff, but…

Yes, I’ve thought of that. I don’t give one whit if Aunt Martha from Iowa (who I never see and I never correspond with) profits from my work. Screw Aunt Martha. (NO, I don’t have an Aunt Martha!) Same goes for all my cousins, who I haven’t seen in ages. But, my sisters, and the rest of my family? Yes. I owe them. If I were to die at age 90, it wouldn’t matter much (since most of these relatives would have passed on before me) but if I died tomorrow? I want these close loved ones to be my heirs.

Perhaps one solution would that the extention should be granted if the heirs could substantively prove that they were “close” to the deceased copyright holder. This may be hard, (and yes, ack! lawyers might get involved—it gets hairy, I know) but witnesses, letters, proof of living in the same residence for a certain amount of time (preferably recently), proof that the heirs were providing financial assistance to the deceased (particularly recently), proof that the deceased was supporting a minor child (so the child could be an heir)…all these things are a good starting point. Make the regulations strict, but fair, so that deserving heirs wouldn’t have any trouble proving their worthiness.

Another solution might be for me to sign a document (a will, as it were) specifying who would be my “heirs”. But if not kept updated, it would not be very useful. And not many of us would keep these things updated. Especially if we weren’t making a lot of money off or our artwork at a certain time. (We’d think, “Why bother?”)

In a nutshell, I’d like to see an extension given to people who actually were part of the LIFE of the copyright holder, and did, in some measure (either emotionally or financially) contribute to the copyright holder’s works. But distant relatives, or relatives who had no use for the copyright holder in life? Screw 'em.

109

OK, now that I think about it a little longer, the better your deal sounds, Strickler.

If an artist were to die at a young age (say, age 25) then at most their oldest copyrightable work would be maybe 10 years old? So that their heirs would have 40 good years out of it. Fine and dandy. In most cases, I think your deal is most acceptable.

And if the artist is 35 at age of death, there would be 30 years left for the heirs. Still OK.

But older than that, and some of the earliest work starts is going to be lost to the heirs, possibly too soon. And in some cases, that may not be right (IMO).

In an extreme case, let’s say someone dies at age 65, after having a hard life of struggle, hard knocks and sacrifice for their art. And let’s say that this artist has works that are 47 years old, and that while these works were underappreciated for most of the artist’s life, recently they started to get noticed. (And in particular, some of the 47 year old artwork is starting to make money.) And let’s say that for many years, this artist’s brother-in-law has been helping out when things get tight. I’d like for the brother in law to be able to be an heir, and for longer than 3 years.

So, even though such a scenario may be uncommon, I don’t think it is that off the wall. A lot of artists don’t make a lot of money in life (think of the stereotype of how you have to DIE to become famous) so it’s not hard to imagine that there are plenty of long-suffering relatives who have helped such artists out for a long time. It doesn’t seem right that when finally things start going their way, it all gets snatched away and the big corporations get to take over.

I think that in such cases, a copyright extention is most certainly warranted.

110

OK I stand corrected on the movement of works in the public domain. Just proved yet again that maths is not my strong point.

Yosemite has said most of what I would have said. I still view the copyrights we hold as the family business (to the extent that if the law changed, I’d put the kids on the copyrights of new works so that they could continue to profit, rather than the publisher). Other heirs get to profit from family businesses – why are the arts any different?

111

Not excused. Where did I write what you ascribed to me above?

112

I’d say the quote below qualifies (bolding added to the relavent part for emphasis):

If the modern neo-Shakespeare you allude to in your example is doing nothing more than “exploiting the works of others” when he/she writes a brilliant drama based on someone else’s (copyrighted) work, then so was the original Shakespeare when he wrote Hamlet, as he did not originate either the plot or the characters of that play (generally regarded as his finest work). In fact, virtually all of Shakespeare’s works are reworkings of previously published materials. The only difference between the two artists lies in the legality of their actions at the time they wrote their plays, and not in any inherent differences in the artistic worth of what they produced. If your neo-Shakespeare is “exploiting the work of others” rather than producing original works, than so was the Bard of Avon.

113

What you are saying, then, is that Shakespeare did exploit the works of others – you admit it. Then why did you write, “So Shakespeare exploited the works of others when he wrote Hamlet? Excuse me, but that’s bullshit.”

Calm down, and watch your tongue.

114

No, that’s what you’re saying. Most people, including Stricker van Gogh (whom you originally quoted - I didn’t write that, you’ll notice, although I did reply to your question), don’t say that at all - they say that what he did in writing Hamlet was not exploitative, but rather transformative. Indeed it’s Shakespeare’s versions of Hamlet, Romeo and Juliet, King Lear ect., that survive, not the earlier works, because they are artistically far superior to the original material. Shakespeare took sow’s ears and made silk purses from them; modern copyright law (and your previous quote) takes the position that our modern sow’s ears should be left alone to rot in the muck. Heaven forbid that a modern artist might attempt to transform them into something wonderful.

If you want to quarrel with Stricker’s tone, that’s your perogative. But his point’s valid - we laud the genius of Shakespeare, but prohibit modern artists from doing exactly what he did to produce his greatest works, and all so that powerful corporations can reap the maximum possible profit.

115

A definition of “exploit” in Merriam-Webster:

No, as I said above, a person can contact the copyright owner and obtain a license.

116

You forget the other definition:

  1. To make unethical use for ones own advantage or profit.

Let’s use definition number 2

117

As if I haven’t rambled enough already…

Something about portions of this thread (particularly some of the posts on page 1) make me think that perhaps some of you don’t grasp how much struggle and effort goes on with creating some of these works. I could be wrong; please forgive me if I am misjudging some of you.

A long-time gripe I have is that some people think being an artist is “easy”, because I was born talented. There are people who actually think this about us “talented” people—that it falls on our laps, and that whatever “talent” we have was given to us at birth. I know that most people understand on some level that it isn’t quite that simple or easy, but still, I think that many people don’t quite grasp it.

I still encounter people that think I could always draw with the ease and accuracy that I possess now. They say wistfully, “Oh, I wish I was as talented as you”, as if the only reason I can do what I can do is because of some fluke at birth. So, these people are shocked when I tell them about all the SUCKY drawings I produced (many sketchbooks full of sucky drawings). The setbacks, the discouragement, the rejections. Not to mention the years of art classes, the art books I pored over, the “wasted paper” (as my mom called it—page after page after page of awful drawings).

My talents (such as they are) did not happen overnight. I sweat blood for them. Most of us creative types are the same way. Of course, we had a “talent” or an “aptitude”, but we weren’t alone. There are many other people with “talents”. Having “talent” isn’t all that rare. What is rare (in my opinion) is to have enough drive or passion or patience or whatever to stick to it, even though very often, developing a talent can be an arduous and very discouraging task.

People see me draw and say, “looks so easy”. It takes only a few minutes to do a drawing, like it’s no effort, so they assume it was always this way, and wonder why I charge what I do for my artwork (which isn’t even all that much, honestly). They don’t understand that I charge what I do because of all the years it took me to get to the point I am now.

So when we creative types get a windfall and we are able to sell some of our work, well, we want to hang onto it. We don’t take such good fortune for granted. We know how many artists go for years without selling much (and it isn’t because of a lack of talent or ability). We don’t see any reason why someone else should so easily take away the product of years our effort and sweating of blood.

Not that creating these works is always so bad. Obviously it’s not—in the long run, it’s a joy. But needless to say, it’s not easy, or else everyone would do it.

118

Half right. A person can contact the copyright holder and request a license. Whether he can actually obtain one depends on the balance of his bank account and the whims of the copyright holder.

I understand completely. I spent over a decade learning to program before I produced anything of real value, and of course I’m still learning. I spend nearly as much time developing my freeware projects and the associated community as I do at my real job.

Being able to visualize a problem in my head and immediately translate it to code requires fluency in several languages, something most people never achieve, as well as the kind of analytical thinking that can only come from experience.

Yet I believe computer code deserves less protection than any other type of art, mainly because it becomes irrelevant so quickly. Technology moves on, as in any field, but so do operating system requirements and user expectations.

Software is unlikely to be useful (for either its original creators or anyone looking to improve it or learn from it) even 10 years after its creation, let alone 70 years after the author’s death! Releasing the copyright on code when the only computers that can still run it are in museums is like spitting in the public domain’s face.

There are plenty of skills that take time and effort to develop… but a master carpenter who studied carpentry for 25 years still doesn’t deserve continuing ownership over every staircase he builds. Let him work for a living like everyone else.

Now, the carpenter could have his customers sign a contract giving him royalties for the use of the staircase, and he’d benefit from his past work until he dies. But the carpenter’s situation and the artist’s situation are still vastly different.

When you buy a physical object, you receive certain rights and take certain risks: you can do anything you want to your car, but if it breaks down, you have to make your own arrangements to repair it. On the other hand, when you rent a car, you sign a contract which gives you limited rights to use the car, and leaves the responsibility of fixing the car with the rental company. A savvy renter can compare different companies’ contracts to find one which gives him the most rights and the fewest risks.

However, when you buy a CD, you don’t sign any contract. The rights you get and the risks you take are imposed by law, and you end up with the worst of both worlds. If you wholly owned it, you would be able to duplicate it and use excerpts any way you want–but you can’t. If you’re only paying for a license to use the information on the CD, you should be able to guarantee your ability to use that license by making backups, getting replacement media, and obtaining the same content in other formats (e.g. download an MP3)–but you’re violating the DMCA if you make a backup of a copy-protected disc, and good luck trying to get a free replacement CD when your dog chews up the one you bought!

In reality, when you buy a CD, you’re paying for both the physical disc and a license for the information, but you receive the rights to neither. If carpenters could do that, every building would be a single story because no one could afford staircases.

119

First, I want to thank artemis for responding so intelligently to Walloon’s questions about my post. The responses were right on.

Unless the license is denied! In some cases (i.e. the work is only 10 years old), denying a license is a legitimate thing to do. In other cases (i.e. when the work is 70+ years old) it is not.

Shakespeare used stories that the public was already familiar with. Using definition number 2 of exploit, as suggested by Blalron, Shakespeare did not “exploit” the works of others.

The point I’m getting at is that Shakespeare didn’t have to ask anyone for permission to write the adaptation of Hamlet, which is now considered, by many, to be the greatest work in English.

Is it a good thing that copyright law does exist nowadays, unlike 400 years ago? Yes. Is it a good thing that copyrights last as long as they do? Oh, no.

The longer the copyright lasts, the longer we deny our neo-Shakespeare the ability to take established works and give them a new spin, as the paleo-Shakespeare did.

Simply put, giving works that are 50+ years old a new spin is NOT exploiting them (again, definition number 2).

There are two essential interests at work here: The interest of the creators to profit from their works, and the interest of the next generation to reinvent the works of their predecessors. There must be a balance between them. yosemitebabe and I have been discussing exactly what that balance is.

yosemitebabe’s example is an artist who has works that are 47 years old when the artist dies. By the 50/life rule, those works’ copyrights would only last 3 more years. Maybe those works will become more popular because of the death of the author, she says. Should we not allow a small extension?

Okay, I can see her point here. I think she’s justified a posthumous extension of a copyright. A very, very short extension of the copyright. Like 10 years after death, max.

I can imagine yosemitebabe saying that 10 years after death isn’t too long, but I simply can’t see cause for any longer. If the early works of an author haven’t been popular for the 50+ years of an author’s creative period, and the works don’t suddenly become popular within a decade of that author’s death, it is quite possible that those works will never be popular.

We can’t keep extending the copyright in the hope that one day the works will be valuable. We must, at some point, draw the line and give the works to the public.

So if the rule today was that copyrights are to last 50 years or until the death of the artist, whichever is longest, with the possibility of a 10 year extension after the death of the artist, I would be happy.

Far from my ideal, but still a good plan. In fact, it’s an outstanding plan when compared to the current law.

120

Not really.

Ah…“real job”.

And this is why software is different from art, music and writing.

Ah, the “real job” thing once again. What makes you think they aren’t working at a “real job” like everyone else? They work many hours, doing something in the hopes that it will sell, and sometimes it doesn’t. Not because their work was faulty, but because the arts are a difficult business, where it’s often feast or famine. Art is not carpentry, and should not be compared to it.

There are many craftsmen (and I don’t use that term in any negative way) that make a tidy living making cars, houses, staircases, and so forth. They make a living because they possess a practical art—something that many people need. They soon learn, if they are worth their salt, that their houses, staircases and cars WILL SELL, as long as they function well. People need them in their everyday lives, the way people need roads, tables, shoes and socks. Creating these items is often a craft, or a craft intermingled with an art. (As in, archectual design, etc.)

My pottery is a craft (intermingled with art), and I certainly don’t expect people to sign a waiver before they buy it and use it in their house. I expect that they can do whatever they wish with it.

However, with the arts—like writing, music, art, photography, there is no actual practical need for the stuff. People won’t starve, go hungry, freeze or die of exposure if they don’t see my photographs, read Primaflora’s latest book, or listen to the latest CD or watch the latest movie. They just won’t. Because of this, such entities also may not sell well, or at all. The creator makes them (usually) “on spec”, meaning that they make them in hopes of selling them. Which means that there are a lot less full-time artists and authors than there are full-time carpenters, car manufacturers, and so forth. Writing, music and art are not practical life-sustaining things, people can pick and choose what they buy, and they don’t have to buy at all.

If you indeed want to encourage artists and authors to continue to have the time to work at their art, it’s probably best that they be able to afford the time. And that won’t happen if they haven’t got a snowball’s chance in hell (in most instances) of making any money at their work. Which is what will happen if the copyright law were to be changed in the way you prefer.

Most writers, artists and photographers are not on the payroll of someone else (and if they are, they are often in “work for hire” situation, where all their work belongs to the company). They work at home, “on spec”, often part time, hoping that maybe this next novel will sell. And with the world being the way it is, there is no guarantee that their next project will sell, (and it often won’t be because of anything lacking in their work). That’s rarely how it works with staircase builders, or carpenters, or car builders. They get a contract to build something, they get paid a decent wage to build it, and they do.

How does this apply to a novel, or a photograph? When was the last time one of these things “broke down”?

How many CDs “break down” and need to get fixed?

I agree—it is petty to not allow the consumer to at least duplicate the CD for their own use. But I see no reason why the CD buyer should be allowed to go to a CD manufacturing company, make 1000 copies of the CD, and sell it to the black market for a profit. Which does happen, and is illegal (and rightfully so).

For one thing, most staircases are essentially the same. One looks similar to the other, and there is little “creativity” involved in the creation of the staircase. For another thing, someone buys a staircase, they have no practical way of “duplicating” the staircase (at very little cost or effort to them) and selling it at a lower price to other people in need of staircases, cutting out the original staircase maker in the profits. For one thing, a staircase is a staircase is a staircase. Another—how does one make “bootleg” staircases?

Your analogy does not hold up.